From: Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>
To: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
Cc: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
Aggelos Economopoulos <aoiko@cc.ece.ntua.gr>
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.58-mm1 with contest
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:37:16 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200301170037.16433.conman@kolivas.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3E26B364.8040402@cyberone.com.au>
On Friday 17 Jan 2003 12:28 am, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >Contest (0.61pre) benchmark results for 2.5.58-mm1
> >
> >no_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.5.55 2 78 96.2 0 0.0 1.00
> >2.5.56 3 79 96.2 0 0.0 1.00
> >2.5.57 3 79 96.2 0 0.0 1.00
> >2.5.58 2 79 96.2 0 0.0 1.00
> >2.5.58-mm1 4 79 96.2 0 0.0 1.00
> >cacherun:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.5.55 2 76 98.7 0 0.0 0.97
> >2.5.56 3 76 100.0 0 0.0 0.96
> >2.5.57 3 76 100.0 0 0.0 0.96
> >2.5.58 2 76 100.0 0 0.0 0.96
> >2.5.58-mm1 4 77 97.4 0 0.0 0.97
> >process_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.5.55 2 94 79.8 30 17.0 1.21
> >2.5.56 3 93 80.6 29 16.1 1.18
> >2.5.57 3 93 81.7 28 16.1 1.18
> >2.5.58 2 92 81.5 27 15.2 1.16
> >2.5.58-mm1 3 94 80.9 29 16.0 1.19
> >ctar_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.5.55 3 133 78.9 1 3.8 1.71
> >2.5.56 3 152 75.7 1 4.6 1.92
> >2.5.57 3 132 79.5 1 3.8 1.67
> >2.5.58 3 117 82.1 1 6.0 1.48
> >2.5.58-mm1 3 109 81.7 1 4.6 1.38
> >xtar_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.5.55 3 113 79.6 1 6.2 1.45
> >2.5.56 3 111 78.4 1 6.3 1.41
> >2.5.57 3 107 80.4 1 5.6 1.35
> >2.5.58 3 122 80.3 1 6.6 1.54
> >2.5.58-mm1 3 121 76.0 1 6.6 1.53
> >io_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.5.55 3 126 63.5 6 12.7 1.62
> >2.5.56 3 131 59.5 7 13.0 1.66
> >2.5.57 5 124 64.5 5 11.3 1.57
> >2.5.58 3 153 54.9 8 14.3 1.94
> >2.5.58-mm1 6 156 51.3 9 14.7 1.97
> >read_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.5.55 3 95 82.1 9 5.3 1.22
> >2.5.56 3 99 80.8 6 6.1 1.25
> >2.5.57 3 100 80.0 6 7.0 1.27
> >2.5.58 3 96 82.3 9 5.2 1.22
> >2.5.58-mm1 4 96 83.3 176189 6.2 1.22
>
> Something seems to have gone wrong with "Loads".
Thanks for the heads up. Must be falling asleep to miss that one. The run
seems to have progressed ok but something died in the output (Aggelos?).
After deleting that result (just in case) the results look like this:
2.5.58 3 96 82.3 9 5.2 1.22
2.5.58-mm1 3 100 81.0 6 6.0 1.27
>
> >list_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.5.55 3 91 84.6 0 8.8 1.17
> >2.5.56 3 91 84.6 0 8.8 1.15
> >2.5.57 3 91 84.6 0 8.8 1.15
> >2.5.58 3 91 85.7 0 8.8 1.15
> >2.5.58-mm1 2 92 83.7 0 9.8 1.16
> >mem_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.5.55 3 116 73.3 66 1.7 1.49
> >2.5.56 3 107 80.4 45 0.9 1.35
> >2.5.57 3 110 80.0 47 0.9 1.39
> >2.5.58 3 107 73.8 66 1.9 1.35
> >2.5.58-mm1 3 104 75.0 50 1.0 1.32
> >dbench_load:
> >Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> >2.5.55 3 117 68.4 2 16.2 1.50
> >2.5.56 2 124 62.9 3 25.8 1.57
> >2.5.57 3 121 64.5 3 22.3 1.53
> >2.5.58 3 122 64.8 3 24.6 1.54
> >2.5.58-mm1 3 118 66.9 3 22.0 1.49
> >
> >Only statistically significant diff b/w 2.5.58 and 2.5.58-mm1 is in
> > ctar_load which is faster in mm1. Trend towards being faster in mem_load.
> >
> >Con
>
> Looks good, thanks.
No problem.
Will have to keep an eye out on the code for more bugs. So far the contest
code changeover is showing far less variability in the results (good job
Aggelos!) which should make for more meaningful results.
Con
prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-16 13:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-16 13:23 [BENCHMARK] 2.5.58-mm1 with contest Con Kolivas
2003-01-16 13:28 ` Nick Piggin
2003-01-16 13:37 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200301170037.16433.conman@kolivas.net \
--to=conman@kolivas.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=aoiko@cc.ece.ntua.gr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox